Watch Elizabeth May and George Monbiot take on climate laggards in tonight’s Munk Debate
“Climate change is mankind’s defining crisis, and demands a commensurate international response.”
This is the resolution that Green Party leader Elizabeth May and acclaimed British journalist George Monbiot will debate at tonight’s Munk Debate. The two will argue for a robust, global response to the climate crisis in order to halt out-of control global warming, against Bjorn Lomborg and Lord Nigel Lawson, who will oppose such an effort.
I’m beyond excited for this debate, and to be lucky enough to have a ticket to the sold-out live debate! I’ve been a huge fan of George Monbiot’s writing for years, and have no doubt that watching him share the stage with debater extraordinare Elizabeth May be unforgettable. I pity their opponents!
I’m hopeful this debate will help refocus attention on the Copenhagen climate meetings set to start later this week, where a successor to the Kyoto Protocol will be negotiated. Specifically, I hope debate will help get Canadians riled up about the shameful stance our country has taken by refusing to live up to our legally-binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, lying and obfuscating on the issue, and standing in the way of those who do care enough to act to preserve our collective future.
In his column yesterday, George Monbiot scathingly opined that Canada has become to climate change what Japan is to whaling. It hurts, but he’s right. We’re an international pariah on the issue. There’s a movement to dump us from the Commonwealth. No surprise, since our government’s stance on climate change contradicts the position taken by the rest of the Commonwealth at last weekend’s meetings, with Harper calling any chance of success in Copenhagen a “long shot”. This stands in stark contrast to the optimistic view expressed by other leaders, like Australia’s Kevin Rudd, and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, who refuses to accept failure. Even Queen Elizabeth II has emphasized the importance of action.
George Monbiot considered tonight’s Munk Debate of such great importance that he has broken his self-imposed ban on air travel to be here in Canada tonight. Why? Because Canada’s continuing sabotage has consequences beyond our own borders. The Harper government strategy of blocking climate change negotiations sours the entire process. If we’re not going to lead the way in this fight, it’s time for Canada to get the hell out of the way.
If you want to tune in, it’s easy — the Munk Debate will be webcast live on the Green Party’s site. But for even more fun, why not meet up with friends and check out one of the live showings across the country? There are screenings set up at locations from coast-to-coast, and campus Green clubs will have a strong presence.
This should be one great debate!
Scridb filter
Hope that the live webcast works better than the webcast of our BGM in Nova Scotia!
We’ll be hosting a live-viewing (via webcast) here in Sudbury this evening, which is intended to be a non-partisan affair (because this issue is too damn important to leave to partisan politics). At least one member of the NDP has indicated that he’ll be there.
I’m still bringing my radio as back-up (I understand that CBC radio is broadcasting the debate live — someone please correct me if I’m wrong).
Webcasts are great things, when they work, which in my experience has been about only half the time.
It should be an interesting debate, because Lomborg in particular is no slouch, and presents what many might think of as being a compelling alternative. He’ll say that for the money we’re investing in fighting climate change, we could end childhood poverty, bring food and water to everyone in the world…but what he doesn’t talk about is how this will be of benefit when people are forced from their homes as climate refugees.
Interestingly, I believe that Lomborg’s arguments only make sense if you assume that our economy is going to stay very much the same as it is today. I, for one, do not believe that it will, as the price of oil is sure to increase now that we have passed peak production, and with China and India still gearing up, demand is only going to rise in the short term. Without another viable fuel option, oil will remain king for a while yet. Expect a very unstable global economy to be the result.
Canada is the climate change bad guy. We have ignored our Kyoto commitments, have poor emissions targets for Copenhagen, and we are actively trying to disrupt climate meetings. But we still have a chance to change and lead.
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/12/bad-canada.html
FYI, about my earlier comment related to the broadcast of the Debate on CBC radio. Apparently, I am mistaken about this. CBC will be broadcasting the webcast of the Munk Debate tonight, live, however there will be no radio coverage. The CBC radio show “Ideas” will be broadcasting the debate next Wednesday, December 9th.
So…I sincerely hope this webcast thing works!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Camille Labchuk and Marlene Wells, Green Bloggers. Green Bloggers said: Watch Elizabeth May and George Monbiot take on climate laggards in tonight’s Munk Debate: “Climate change is ma.. http://bit.ly/7KwcLk [...]
Just wanted to update anyone following my comments: the webcast was a total success! Just one tiny, 5-second glitch, that was all throughout the whole night (and since it happened during one of Nigel Lawson’s reality-spinning rants, likely we were all the better off for it).
A small group gathered in Sudbury (about 15 people) to watch on short notice, not all of us GPC people either. Went out for drinks afterwards and debated more amongst ourselves!
One last item to comment on here: I noticed that during the debates, Bjorn Lomborg seemed to be receiving a disproportionate amount of applause over some of the comments he was making, given that 61 % of the audience stated at the outset that they agreed with the Resolution.
Maybe they found Lomborg compelling (although I think Elizabeth and George did a good job of completely disassembling not just his arguments, but him). Maybe they were buying into what he was selling.
Or maybe they were just buying tickets to the debate (or having those tickets bought for them), providing a false response to whether they agreed with the Resolution in order to pump up the numbers on the PRO side, only to “change their minds” at the end of the debate, handing the CONS a win.
I wasn’t there, so I don’t know if this happened. The Munk Debates website has posted the outcome yet (although it was announced last night in the lobby, I understand: no webcast of that, which was disappointing). So, if the numbers went down from 61% agreement, I will have to wonder outloud a little more about the numbers, given what I observed of the debate on the webcast. It certainly is within the realm of possibility that those with other vested interests might do something a little underhanded to stimey action on climate change, don’t you think?